Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) so you are saying the democrat party don't run left wing extremists?......they dont have socialists in the party?......funny how the media only focus on the extremists of the republican party and ignores the extremists of the left.
2) I don't know much about Christie, Im not from New Jersey. He has to run a full national primary and take stands on issues before I can say he is a formidable candidate for president. It was you that said he was a formidable candidate.......because he is a moderate in a liberal state?.....you make it sound like a conservative is a bad word.....LOL
3) You brought up the thing that republicans dont like Obama, when has a party liked a President from the opposing party? what's new here?.........and my point was that you didn't get is our country is built with divided powers. The President is not king, meaning there are other branches of government that matters too not just the WH..........I rather have control of a state and congress than the WH, that's just my opinion......its kinda hard to pass your agenda as president when congress and the states are from an opposing party......just saying........
1. LOL again putting words in my mouth, just sad. Please point out where I said there were no liberal Democrats. Why are you grasping at straws and changing the subject to the media as if I own all of TV and the internet and am responsible for their content, you should quietly accept your crushing loss in this argument and move on.
2. Again, you wont point out who you consider to be the best Republican candidate while saying my choice is wrong. If you're that ill informed as to have no explanation as to why I'm wrong and no alternative that would be better, you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
3. Yet again changing the subject. You said I and liberals were hypocrites for opposing Bush, which makes no sense. I'm not even sure you're able to keep track of what you are saying, almost as if I am conversing with one of those random fact generators lol
Mickey Mouse would have a lock on Hispanic votes if the GOP candidate talks self deportation. Over 60 percent of legal Hispanics and Asians have either friends or family in the country illegally and will vote against anyone that wants to force them to leave.
so you are admitting that for a party to win the WH, they need to have open borders......for lower wages and higher unemployment. ......lets make Mexico state 51, might as well, with that type of thinking.
so what you are saying is lets vote in a President that takes an oath to enforce all our laws except the ones that hurt the party for votes.....ok....LOL
I am not overly impressed with this article. It is well known that the Democrats probably need only two dozen electoral college votes to win (270-246=24), even before either side has picked a candidate.
In 2012 the Democrats won an extra 7 states, giving them well more than the 24 they needed. In fact they could have won it without any of the three big swing states.
Nevada 6
Iowa 6
New Mexico 5
Colorado 9
Virginia 13
Ohio 18
Florida 29
But the Democrats won those 7 states by 3.2% . I wouldn't call that impossible. Just very very difficult.
The Dems would win with ease given the above via divide and conquer. With GOP having to sweep 10 states, Dems just need to spend money in all 10, which essentially foces GOP to respond in kind, and with that, GOP chances of sweeping go bye-bye.
GOP needs a bison suffrage movement. Short of that, they are starting off on their own one inch line with every possession of the ball.
1. LOL again putting words in my mouth, just sad. Please point out where I said there were no liberal Democrats. Why are you grasping at straws and changing the subject to the media as if I own all of TV and the internet and am responsible for their content, you should quietly accept your crushing loss in this argument and move on.
2. Again, you wont point out who you consider to be the best Republican candidate while saying my choice is wrong. If you're that ill informed as to have no explanation as to why I'm wrong and no alternative that would be better, you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
3. Yet again changing the subject. You said I and liberals were hypocrites for opposing Bush, which makes no sense. I'm not even sure you're able to keep track of what you are saying, almost as if I am conversing with one of those random fact generators lol
1) your critique of 1 side and silence for the other side says it all.......if you are going to talk about extremists, they are on both parties. Jesse Jackson and AL Sharpton to name a few democrats are as racist and extremists as you could find as with some in the republican party......but you are selective when it comes to bad candidates and extremists. Both parties run bad candidates in every race to congress, it is what it is. Just admit that your bias towards what you think of what are the bad candidates in 1 particular party.
2) How do you want me to tell you which republican candidate is formidable if they haven't started the 2016 primaries? ......im going what you said, you said Christie is formidable because of what? because some liberals like him? he is governor of a blue state?
3) I didn't call you a hypocrite.......I called some democrats hypocrites for opposing Bush for 8 years on everything including bashing him but when its done to obama they start crying foul and pulling out the race card.....double standard, do you now understand my comment?
[quote=Rush71;31245199]
2) How do you want me to tell you which republican candidate is formidable if they haven't started the 2016 primaries? ......im going what you said, you said Christie is formidable because of what? because some liberals like him? he is governor of a blue state/quote]
Yes, a nominee who appeals to independents like Christie, who can win a blue state and be popular as well despite being pro life in a state that disagrees, yes that is a formidable candidate.
Not a nut who just widens SD's GOP margin from 20 to 30.
If you wish for the GOP to win, they must think math..not religion. They must think appeal to independents, not the rural Southeast which will provide EVs come rain or shine.
The right-wingers on this board are acting as stupidly as the McGovernicks of the 70s. They are ignoring the basic math of the only thing that counts-270 EVs.
1) Any Governor who wins appeals to independents of the state, what does that have to do in a national election? Romney won as governor in a blue state and lost his own state in a national election. Gore was a Senator of TN and lost his home state when he ran for President.
2) Didn't cross your mind that Christie won as a Republican in New Jersey because the democrat party of the state was in a weak state left by the corrupt Corzine and Mcgreevey who had to resign in disgrace?.......but you like him because he won in New Jersey?......LOL.....how does that make him a formidable national candidate for President? you think the republican primary in 2016 will run weak candidates like Corzine against Christie?.....or the democrats will run a weak candidate like Corzine or Mcgreevey against Christie in the national election? PLEASE....
3) you don't sell your principles and sellout just to win elections.........then you have a party that nobody knows what they stand for......that's the problem with politics and politicians of both parties. They sell out to win elections and then what?.......how is that good for the country in the long run?
The Dems would win with ease given the above via divide and conquer. With GOP having to sweep 10 states, Dems just need to spend money in all 10, which essentially foces GOP to respond in kind, and with that, GOP chances of sweeping go bye-bye.
GOP needs a bison suffrage movement. Short of that, they are starting off on their own one inch line with every possession of the ball.
a bison suffrage movement ????
The election in 2016 is the Democrats to lose, there is no doubt. I would argue that the Democrats have 242 ev's locked down (not 246). But the Republican party pretty much have only 185 ev's locked down.
But before Romney was even picked as the candidate, the Democrats had lost North Carolina, Indiana, and Omaha congressional district in Nebraska. They had decided to vote for any Republican candidate. The fact that Romney was unable to gain one single electoral college votes above these states was sad.
But Biden is going to run and so the contenders will have to knock him down and differentiate themselves from the Obama presidency. It could split the field. The Republican party is not going to be dumb enough to try running two middle aged white guys yet again.
its hard to beat an incumbent president unless he has a primary challenge that weakens him like LBJ in 1968, Carter in 1980 and Bush SR. in 1992...........incumbent presidents that have no primary challenge have a huge money advantage over the opposing party......while his potential rivals are killing each other in the primary and spending money the incumbent president is not and is saving money.
That's how W Bush beat Kerry in 2004, no primary challenge and Kerry had to fight for his nomination and his weaknesses were exposed a lot.
in 2016 the democrats won't have that advantage because the incumbent president can't run again. it will be a long bloody primary, you will have 1 group defending the Obama record and others distancing themselves from it trying to sell a new course which is not going to be easy for the party in power.
The election in 2016 is the Democrats to lose, there is no doubt. I would argue that the Democrats have 242 ev's locked down (not 246). But the Republican party pretty much have only 185 ev's locked down.
But before Romney was even picked as the candidate, the Democrats had lost North Carolina, Indiana, and Omaha congressional district in Nebraska. They had decided to vote for any Republican candidate. The fact that Romney was unable to gain one single electoral college votes above these states was sad.
But Biden is going to run and so the contenders will have to knock him down and differentiate themselves from the Obama presidency. It could split the field. The Republican party is not going to be dumb enough to try running two middle aged white guys yet again.
I just don't see a slam dunk.
It will be a string of 300-330 Democratic EV victories, with ease, until the GOP recognizes one cannot cede the populated states.
Hence, the bison suffrage movement quip!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
......lets make Mexico state 51, might as well, with that type of thinking.
